4 ms·
Sounds a lot like the "security through obscurity"-argument. I was never a fan of it. If we don't research and communicate the dangers, potential issues might s
by LeanderK 8y ago
Sounds a lot like the "security through obscurity"-argument. I was never a fan of it. If we don't research and communicate the dangers, potential issues might slip! We need to be proactive in these things.
- Firerouge 8y agoThat's a good point. Security through obscurity doesn't prevent attacks, but may raise the bar of entry and delay a motivated attacker. I imagine if all 3D printers were distributed with warning stickers saying that they can be used to print guns and knives that more people would try it than if it was less publicized. Making it just a bit harder to discover the knowledge to weaponize something could give defensive researchers the time to build effective countermeasures.
- onceKnowable 8y agoThat’s why informed public debate is not about adding warning stickers to things, it’s about creating competent laws that robustly protect the public. In your example, the result shouldn’t be warning stickers, it’s laws specifically against building guns with your 3D printer. Or if right to weapons happens to be enshrined in your constitution, it’s aboyt legal liability protocols being amended to take into account the fact that a perpetrator used a weapon that they built in their 3D printer as opposed to a regularly procured weapon.